Tracking Is Not Permanence: What Video World Models Keep of a Hidden Object

arXiv:2610.07355v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Video world models track objects they can see; we ask what they keep of objects they cannot. We hide an object from a frozen V-JEPA 2 predictor and compare its prediction for the hidden region with the encoder's representation of two worlds that differ only inside that region. The predictor's decision keeps a stationary object in part and one carried inside a container not at all, and loses a moving one within 0.3 s (0.5 s under V-JEPA's own tube mask; ViT-H keeps it to 1.1 s at pretraining's 90% masking ratio); in projection a trace remains, below the midpoint, at 14-60% of what a baseline copying the last view retains. The information is there: the encoder reads the object's presence at 1.00 and keeps a closed container's contents decodable for 3.5 s, while the predictor's output, read with the encoder's own probe, contains the ball in 2% of scenes once the box has been closed for half a second. On rendered scenes, permanence is missing on the predictor's side, and training installs it cheaply as a prior: three thousand predictor-only steps on synthetic containers take this belief from 0.05 to 1.00 against two matched controls. They also raise IntPhys-2019 from 84.2% to 93.3%, but so does a curriculum without containers, and which training habit the benchmark credits changes with its scoring rule. Continued training with tube masks produces 1.1-1.6 s of moving-object carry-over on manipulation and internet-style video, so the deficit is not intrinsic to latent prediction. VideoMAE keeps almost nothing, and Cosmos's next-token prediction keeps a stationary hidden object but not one carried inside a moving container.

Source: arXiv cs.CL | 2026-10-07

Related